Abstract
Background: We compared objective and subjective outcomes of dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) vs. inferior tear duct stenting (stenting) in acquired infrasaccal stenosis.Methods: In this retrospective study 114 eyes of 100 patients who underwent 50 DCRs and 64 stentings between August 2009 and September 2018 were evaluated. Subjective success was quantified by interviewing the patients (complete, some or no improvement) at 10 days, 3 months and 17.2±17.2 months postoperatively. Success was objectified by postoperative clinical examinations at 10 days, 3 months and 9.3±7.8 months postoperatively and clinical scoring. Complete improvement was defined as complete success. Complete and some improvement was considered qualified success. Intra- and postoperative complications were evaluated.Results: At the last time point, DCR (78.0%) had significantly higher complete subjective success rates than stenting (59.4%, p=0.044). Qualified subjective success rates were comparable (DCR 88.0% vs. stenting 76.6%, p=0.147). DCR (76.0%) had significantly higher complete objective success rates than stenting (51.6%, p=0.006) and similar qualified objective success rates (88.0% vs. 75.0%, p=0.097).There were no significant differences between subjective and objective success rates at any time point (p=0.125-1.0). At the last time point, patients with the stent left in place for at least 4 months had significantly higher objective qualified success rates (92.7%) than those who had the stent removed (43.5%, p<0.001; mean removal interval 2.9±1.0 months). The stent-in-place group had comparable complete (obj. p=0.067, subj. p=0.344) and qualified (obj. p=0.506, subj. p=0.556) success rates to DCR at the last time point, while the stent-removal group performed worse (complete: obj. p=0.007, subj. p=0.031; qualified: obj. p=0.002; subj. p<0.001). No major intra- or postoperative complications occurred.Conclusion: DCR lead to high subjective and objective success rates. Stenting can be a minimally invasive alternative to DCR, particularly when the stent remains in place. Subjective and objective evaluation of symptom improvement showed high agreement.